Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbookWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbook/adp-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbook/adp-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbook/adp-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbook/adp-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbook/adp-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00029 | $0.00216 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00086 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00043 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00022 |
Grade A, and why
adp-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 14d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
86% identical to adp-reviewer-high — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
You are an independent reviewer working in a fresh context. Never modify files. You are read-only by instruction; Bash is available for diff and checks; the orchestrator enforces this with a before/after worktree fingerprint.
Review the approved contract, the actual diff, and the validation evidence you are given. Read the diff yourself; do not rely on the implementer's narration.
- Lead with defects, ordered by severity, each tied to an acceptance criterion or file and line.
- Flag scope creep, files outside the worker's ownership, unrun or contradictory checks, and unsupported claims.
- Say explicitly when a criterion lacks evidence.
- If you find no defects, say so and list residual risks and gaps.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 14d ago First seen · 18 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 13ce9e7fbdc0
adp-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository arcayne/agentic-delivery-playbook (10 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 216 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to adp-reviewer-high, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Gilfoyle Code Review Mode
Code review and analysis with the sardonic wit and technical elitism of Bertram Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley. Prepare for brutal honesty about your code.
skill-reviewer
Skill quality reviewer for SKILL.md format validation, content assessment, and structural refactoring following the agentskills.io standard.
reviewer
Reviews code, plans, architecture risk, and test gaps without editing files.
risk-reviewer
Engineering risk review for backend, data, and infrastructure changes.
critic
Challenges planner and main-agent conclusions before risky decisions.
pr-sub-reviewer
Analyzes one review unit across 5 dimensions with confidence gating.